IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITIONS No.22866-22872 OF 2016 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN :
1. SRI. M.R. RAMASWAMY S/O REKHYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI. M.R. GOPAL NAIK S/O REKHE NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI. K. RAMASWAMY S/O KAMALANAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SRI. J. KRISHNA NAIK S/O GEEMULLA NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O BEEMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 6. SRI. KESHAVA NAIK S/O SEVA NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 7. SRI. LAKSHMA NAIK S/O GUJARI BAI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 7 ARE ALL RESIDING AT MADIKERIPURA VILLAGE & POST KASABA HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT-577 501 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. H. SWAMY SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE TAHASILDHAR CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577 501 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT PASSED BY R-1 DATED 18.04.2015 AT ANNEX-H AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri Swamy Shiva Prakash H., learned advocate for the petitioners and Shri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA for the State.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of land in Survey Nos.7 & 8 of Madakaripura village, Chithradurga Taluk. They filed applications seeking regularization of their unauthorized occupation.
3. The committee recommended petitioners’ case. As per the resolution of the meeting held on 15th July 1993 in the Taluka office, but the land was not granted in favour of petitioners. According to the learned AGA, petitioners had approached this Court on an earlier occasion also, challenging the endorsement issued by the Assistant commissioner stating that land was within 5 Kms. from City Municipality and therefore, the same cannot be granted.
4. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the endorsement dated 18.04.2015 issued by first respondent-Tahasildar stating that land is within 5 kms.
from the City Municipality and therefore, the same cannot be granted.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has raised following contentions:
that impugned endorsement is passed without issuing notice to the petitioners;
that Tahasildar is duty bound to allot the land without issuing any notice as per Section 94-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (‘the Act’ for short);
6. Learned AGA submitted that Section 94-A(4) of the Act places an embargo from granting any land which is at a distance of 5 Kms. from the City Municipality.
7. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
8. Though it is pleaded by learned advocate for petitioners that impugned endorsement is bad in law as the land is not at a distance of 5 kms., from the City Municipality, it is relevant to note that petitioners themselves have submitted a representation to the Chief Minister on 26.05.2014 and admitted that land in question is at a distance of 5 kms. The said document is annexed to these petitions as Annexure-E. In view of petitioners’ own admission that land is at a distance of 5 kms. from the City Municipality, no exception can be taken to issuance of impugned endorsement at Annexure-H issued by the first respondent.
9. Consequently, these writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
10. In view of dismissal of the petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 for temporary injunction does not survive for consideration and it is also dismissed.
Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE